Afghanistan: Interpreters

Baroness Coussins: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have finalised details of a financial incentives package intended to be offered to Afghan interpreters in order to encourage them to remain in Afghanistan; and, if so, what they are.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Afghan interpreters they anticipate will wish to accept the financial incentives package to remain in Afghanistan.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider that they have a duty of care to locally-engaged interpreters in Afghanistan who have worked or are still working with United Kingdom Armed Forces.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the resettlement options scheme to be offered to Afghan interpreters who have worked with the United Kingdom armed forces is confined to those employed between December 2012 and December 2014; and, if so, why.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the resettlement options scheme to be offered to Afghan interpreters who have worked with the United Kingdom armed forces will include the Kabul-based spokesmen who have received threats from the Taliban due to the high-profile nature of their work; and, if not, why not.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Afghan interpreters will be excluded from the resettlement options scheme if it is limited to frontline staff employed between December 2012 and December 2014.

Lord Astor of Hever: The Government published a Written Ministerial Statement on 4 June 2013 (Official Report, col. WS 89-90).

Architecture and the Built Environment

Lord Marlesford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government which bodies were consulted before they set up the review of architecture and the built environment under Sir Terry Farrell; and what steps they took to ensure that its advisory panel included expertise in engineering, landscape architecture, interior design, water management and waste management.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The Royal Institute of British Architects and the Design Council were consulted about the review of architecture and the built environment before it was announced. The advisory panel was
	selected by Sir Terry Farrell after consultation with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The review will shortly launch a call for evidence which will give all interested parties the opportunity to engage in the process.

Barnett Consequential Payments

Lord Wigley: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what Barnett consequential payments have been made to the Welsh Government arising from changes in the expenditure on the health service in England in (1) 2010–11, (2) 2011–12, and (3) 2012–13.

Lord Deighton: The Welsh Government have not received any Barnett consequentials arising from changes in spending on the health service in England since the spending review in 2010.

Benefits

Lord Moonie: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what mechanisms exist to allow people to return their (1) statutory benefits, and (2) automatically-applied tax reliefs.

Lord Freud: If an individual does not want to benefit from their statutory benefits or income tax personal allowances, they should contact either the Department for Work and Pensions or HM Revenue and Customs respectively.

Cabinet Office Precedent Book

Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in preparing the Cabinet Office Precedent Book for declassification and public release.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Officials in the Cabinet Office have been reviewing the Precedent Book to identify what material, if any, can be released to the National Archives.

Digital Economy Act 2010

Lord Walton of Detchant: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will extend the provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2010 to cover on-site loans of audiobooks, e-audio and e-books.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The Government commissioned an independent review of e-lending in public libraries in England last year and the panel, led by William Sieghart, recommended that public lending right (PLR) be extended to e-books and audiobooks. The government response to the review, published on 27 March, sets out that the Government will consider commencing the provisions of the Digital Economy Act to extend PLR to onsite loans of e-books and audiobooks.

Economy: Sport and Recreation

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the value of recreational walking in the countryside to the United Kingdom economy.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The Government cannot provide an overall estimate of the value of recreational walking in the countryside as data are not delineated into this specific category. Value to the economy derives from avoided health costs, visitor spend and the use of local contractors in maintaining access infrastructure among others.
	Evidence shows that the South West Coast Path, one of our 13 national trails, alone delivers £300 million per year into the local economy. The latest data from the Monitor Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (MENE) show that the average amount spent, on visits to the countryside, which may or may not have included walking, that incurred expenditure during the period March 2012 to February 2013 was £26.56 per visit. The full report can be found at: http://www. naturalengland.org.uk/Images/mene-report-february-2013_tcm6-35686.pdf
	The Public Health Outcome Framework recognises the significance of accessible outdoor space as a wider determinant of public health. There is strong evidence to suggest that outdoor spaces have a beneficial impact on physical and mental well-being and cognitive function through both physical access and usage. Further information can be found at: http://www.phoutcomes. info/public-health-outcomes-framework#gid/1000041 /par/E12000004/ati/102/page/3/.

Embryology

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Drayson on 4 November 2009 (WA 59–60) and 12 November 2009 (WA 207–8), regarding the extension of the research project entitled “Improving the efficiency of human somatic cell nuclear transfer”, what assessment they have made of the reasons for the length of time between the initial award of the grant and the anticipated date of publication.

Viscount Younger of Leckie: The Government have not made an assessment of the reasons for the length of time between the initial award of the grant for the research project “Improving the efficiency of human somatic cell nuclear transfer”, and the anticipated date of publication.

Hillsborough Disaster

Lord Harris of Haringey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to the Independent Police Complaints Commission to secure the co-operation of organisations which may be resistant to the disclosure of material to its investigation into the Hillsborough disaster.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: Over 450,000 pages of documents were reviewed by the Hillsborough Independent Panel from various organisations and individuals. Given the importance of the IPCC’s investigation into Hillsborough the Government expect these, and other organisations and individuals involved, to continue to co-operate through disclosure of necessary material.
	In December 2012, the Police (Complaints and Conduct) Act 2012 conferred on the IPCC new powers necessary to assist with its investigation into Hillsborough. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will also introduce further powers to provide the IPCC with a statutory power to require disclosure of information from any person, where that information is necessary and relevant to a matter under its investigation.

Human Trafficking

Baroness Doocey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many children have been identified as being trafficked for labour exploitation, including domestic servitude, since 2007; and what action they are taking to implement the International Labour Organisation Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, ratified by the United Kingdom in 2000.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The National Referral Mechanism (NRM), established in 2009, and managed by the UK Human Trafficking Centre, collects data on potential victims of trafficking, including a breakdown of child referrals by type of exploitation. Data prior to the establishment of the NRM in April 2009 were not centrally collected.
	Published data for the period April 2009 to December 2012 show a total of 318 child referrals for labour exploitation and 143 child referrals for domestic servitude.
	NRM statistics are published on the SOCA website: www.soca.gov.uk/about-soca/about-the-ukhtc/national-referral-mechanism/statistics.
	Implementation of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 182 on the worst forms of child labour is covered by a range of government actions delivered by a number of departments, including Home Office, Department for Education and the Department for International Development. As required by ratification, the Government reports, on a biennial basis, to the ILO on significant changes to legislation and practice related to the articles in the convention.

Human Trafficking

Baroness Doocey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will include the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation as one of its key priority threat areas when it becomes part of the National Crime Agency in October.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre has published its centre plan for 2013-14, which sets out its work to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse both online and offline as part of the National Crime Agency. The plan can be found here: http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/CEOP_Annual_Review2011-2012_and_Centre_Plan2012-2013.pdf.

Legal Aid

Baroness O'Loan: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many immigration cases involving victims of human trafficking were funded by civil legal aid in (1) 2008–09, (2) 2009–10, (3) 2010–11, (4) 2011–12, and (5) 2012–13; and in what proportion of those cases the litigant was successful.

Lord McNally: The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not hold information on whether immigration claims involved alleged victims of human trafficking for the years in question; legal aid cases are funded in broad categories and it is not possible to isolate such cases from the total caseload for immigration and asylum.

NHS: Private Sector

Lord Dykes: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they will take to counter any undue private sector interference in the National Health Service.

Earl Howe: The Government see a key role for all types of organisations in delivering National Health Service-funded services. This includes public sector, not for profit and for profit providers. Involving an active and vibrant provider landscape, should result
	in benefits including increased quality and choice for patients, innovation in service delivery models and increased value for the taxpayer.
	The new system architecture established by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 includes safeguards to ensure that any increased competition is in the best interests of patients and the taxpayer.
	In relation to the provision of NHS-funded services, the 2012 Act contains provisions that prohibit the Secretary of State, NHS England and Monitor from using their powers to vary the proportion of NHS services provided by a provider. This includes by reference to whether they are in the public or private sector, or some other aspect of their status.
	In relation to the commissioning of NHS-funded services, the NHS Act 2006, as amended by the 2012 Act, sets out clear requirements of clinical commissioning groups to set out in their constitutions the arrangements made for managing conflicts of interest, and ensuring the transparency and integrity of their decision-making processes.

Pharmacies

The Countess of Mar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultation took place with patients of dispensing doctors prior to the development of pharmaceutical needs assessments; and what consultation took place with patients of dispensing doctors who were found to live within 1.6 kilometres of a community pharmacy following the recent audits by primary care trusts.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many appeals have been made by patients of dispensing doctors against decisions to require them to have their prescriptions dispensed at a pharmacy that is within 1.6 kilometres of where they live rather than at their doctors’ surgeries; how many of those appeals have been by disabled or elderly patients; and how many have been successful since January 2011.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether economic benefits to pharmacists were a consideration when deciding their pharmaceutical needs assessment policy.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in the light of their stated policy that the National Health Service should operate on the principles of patient choice and “No decision about me without me”, they will review their decision to require patients of dispensing doctors who live within 1.6 kilometres of a community pharmacy to use such pharmacies to collect prescriptions.
	To ask Her Majesty’s Government what research they carried out into the preferences of patients who previously received prescriptions from dispensing doctors when developing the new Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment.

Earl Howe: On the question of whether the Government will review the current criteria under which a patient is eligible to receive National Health
	Service dispensing services from their doctor, I refer the noble Countess to the answer I gave on 16 May 2013, ( Official Report , col. 524). Patients who are no longer eligible to receive NHS dispensing services from their doctor may choose to have their prescriptions dispensed from any NHS pharmacy they wish. They are not obliged to choose the nearest.
	The requirement for primary care trusts (PCTs) to undertake a pharmaceutical needs assessment (PNA) was set out in Regulation 4 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Amendment Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/914—“the 2010 regulations”) made by the previous Administration. They came into force on 24 May 2010 and amended the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/641—“the 2005 regulations”). The 2005 regulations were replaced by the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2012—SI 2012/1909 which in turn were replaced by the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013 — SI 2013/349 — “the 2013 regulations”.
	The 2010 regulations required each PCT to develop, consult and then publish its PNA by 1 February 2011.
	They also required each PCT to consult, at least once and for a minimum of 60 days, a range of local interests on its proposed PNA. These interests included any relevant local involvement network and any other patient, consumer or community groups in its area which, in the opinion of the PCT, had an interest in the provision of pharmaceutical services locally. Among other interests consulted, each PCT had to consult any dispensing doctors in its area. PCTs were not required to consult the patients of dispensing doctors but were free to do so if they wished. The department does not compile or hold information centrally about the various local interests that PCTs consulted.
	The department did not require PCTs to undertake an audit of any dispensing patients in its area or to conduct an audit of patients’ eligibility to receive dispensing services as a result of their PNA work. However, the department understands that, either alongside, or following completion of, their work on PNAs, some PCTs undertook reviews locally to ensure that any dispensing patients continued to be eligible, under the regulatory criteria, to receive dispensing services from their doctor. That was good administrative practice on the part of PCTs since it was their responsibility under the 2005 and earlier regulations to ensure that patients, who received dispensing services, were, or continued to be, eligible to receive them. The department holds no information centrally on the number of PCTs that undertook such reviews at that time, or whether such PCTs consulted dispensing patients prior to, or as part of, any review held.
	Following the abolition of PCTs, under the 2013 regulations, responsibility for developing, consulting and publishing PNAs transferred to the health and well-being boards of local authorities. Responsibility for all other matters, including questions of determining a patient’s eligibility to receive NHS dispensing services, transferred to the NHS Commissioning Board (known as NHS England).
	A patient’s eligibility to receive NHS dispensing services from their doctor is primarily based on the patient living in a designated rural area, at more than
	1.6 kilometres from their nearest NHS pharmacy. This is a straightforward and fixed calculation. Under the 2013 regulations, if a doctor applies to provide dispensing services on behalf of some or all of the practice’s patients, the applicant has a right to appeal a NHS decision to refuse the application, but not the individual patients concerned. Similarly, under the 2013 regulations, where a patient is notified that a decision has been made requiring a dispensing practice to discontinue dispensing services to some or all of their patients, the dispensing practice, but not the individual patients affected, has a right to appeal that decision. Where a patient is no longer eligible, the NHS may allow a period of time, typically three to six months, after which such patients start to use a NHS pharmacy. This is known as “gradualisation”. A decision to allow this grace period can be appealed by the NHS pharmacy affected, but not by individual patients concerned.
	The department neither collects nor holds information centrally on the number of patients who have either been refused permission, or have been advised they are no longer eligible, to receive NHS dispensing services.
	The objective of moving to a system whereby the provision of NHS pharmaceutical services and the determination of pharmacy applications were primarily judged against PNAs was to provide a more rigorous assessment of local needs and a more objective framework for determining contractual arrangements and entry to the market than existed prior to September 2012. The question of economic benefits to pharmacies was not a material consideration in the development of this policy.
	Where a pharmacy applies to open within a designated rural area, PCTs previously, and now NHS England, must, in addition, determine whether approval of the application would prejudice the provision of relevant NHS services in the area concerned. Relevant NHS services include primary medical and pharmaceutical services. If satisfied that there would be prejudice, the NHS must refuse the application. This “prejudice” test has been a regulatory requirement for many years and was not affected by the recent regulatory changes which introduced the new system of entry for pharmacies based on local PNAs.
	Equally, because this additional prejudice test remains in place and has not been affected by those recent changes, the department has not identified a need to research the preferences of patients who are no longer eligible to receive dispensing services. A dispensing patient, who is no longer eligible, but who would have serious difficulty getting to a NHS pharmacy of their choice, can apply to NHS England to continue to receive dispensing services from their doctor. In addition, many NHS pharmacies now offer free prescription collection and delivery services.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

Lord Greaves: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether election material posted on the internet requires an imprint and, if so, in what form; and whether they have
	plans to make regulations under Section 143(6) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Under current legislation, non-printed election material does not require an imprint. However, Electoral Commission guidance to candidates states that imprints should be included in electronic communications, which contain material on or behalf of a candidates as a matter of good practice. The imprint should include the name and address of the promoter and the organisation on whose behalf it has been produced. The Government have not brought forward regulations under Section 143(6) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to extend current provisions on imprints to cover electronic, online or other non-printed materials. Devising such workable provisions in this area would be complex and the Government have no plans to legislate at this stage.

Prisoners and Young Offenders

Lord Beecham: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many adult prisoners and young offenders in custodial institutions in the North East of England come from outside that region; and what proportion of the total number they represent.

Lord McNally: The following table shows, as at 31 March 2013, the number of male and female adult prisoners and young offenders (aged 18-20 years old) held in prisons in the National Offender Management Service’s (NOMS) north-east region with (i) a recorded residential address outside of the NOMS north-east region and (ii) a recorded address inside the NOMS north-east region.
	Male and female prisoners (as at 31March 2013) held in prisons in the NOMS north-east region broken down by recorded residential address (i) outside and (ii) inside the NOMS north-east region
	
		
			  Young offenders (aged 18-20) % Adult Prisoners (aged 21 and over) % Total Overall % 
			 (i) Recorded address outside NOMS NE region 289 59% 1,759 39% 2,048 41% 
			 (ii) Recorded address inside NOMS NE region 199 41% 2,787 61% 2,986 59% 
			 Total 488  4,546  5,034  
		
	
	The vast majority of prisoners transferred to the NOMS north-east region are from adjacent areas. In the management of the prison population the aim is to hold prisoners in establishments that provide the level of security required, are suitable for their gender, age and legal status, provide special facilities appropriate to prisoner needs and are near to their homes or the courts dealing with their cases. However, as there are fewer establishments holding young offenders they are on average likely to be further from their home area.
	Information on offenders’ residences is provided by offenders on reception into prison and recorded on a central IT system. Addresses can include a home address, an address to which offenders intend to return on discharge or next of kin address and these figures are included.
	If no address is given, an offender’s committal court address is used as a proxy for the area in which they are resident. No address has been recorded and no court information is available for around 3% of all offenders. These figures are excluded from the table.
	These figures have been drawn from administrative IT systems, which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Schools: Funding

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recommendations in the report by Reform Must do better: spending on schools relating to the ring-fenced schools budget; whether they intend to abolish that budget; and, if so, what assessment they have made of the consequences for the education system.

Lord Nash: The Government remain committed to protecting the schools budget because we believe that education is the most important investment which we can make in our country’s future.

Schools: Teachers

Baroness Whitaker: To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish the statutory guidance prepared by the Equality and Human Rights Commission aimed at ensuring teachers are equipped to deal with the diversity of the their students.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The Equality and Human Rights Commission has decided to produce technical guidance rather than statutory codes which will provide a formal, authoritative, and comprehensive legal interpretation of the PSED and education sections of the Equality Act. It will also clarify the requirements of the legislation. The technical guidance will complement
	the existing suite of codes of practice and non-statutory guidance. The commission intends to publish the schools technical guidance for England and separate technical guidance for Scotland by the end of June 2013. The commission has already published guidance for schools in Wales.

Teachers: Training

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Nash on 22 April (WA 364), whether they ensure that training for all classroom teachers on special educational needs, including dyslexia, is included in every initial teacher training course.

Lord Nash: It is essential that teachers’ initial training prepares them to teach children with a broad range of special educational needs (SEN).
	Every initial teacher training course must ensure that trainees meet the Teachers' Standards, which state that teachers must be able to “adapt [their] teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils” and demonstrate “a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs.” This means that in order to comply with the standards all courses must include training on SEN and disabilities, including dyslexia.
	Ofsted inspects initial teacher training provision to ensure high quality provision is in place. As part of this, it monitors and evaluates how well training providers prepare teachers to meet the needs of all pupils with SEN and disabilities, including those with dyslexia.